I agree. They can keep their grid spot thereby preventing races from becoming artificial and the fastest drivers are still up the front. Put a points price on each extra component used at the start of the year.

My idea was to allow teams to allocate up to 7 different race weekends for a penalty free engine/compartment swaps before the season starts, 5 mandatory and 2 "joker" swaps. Any engine/ component changes outside of this and a set monetary fee per part is paid on a sliding scale based on the teams position in the previous years WCC standings... that money is put aside and at the end of the year divided up and given to the smaller teams.

If the top teams can afford to swap parts and pay the fines let them... the money will just be given to the struggling teams anyway. Its not like sauber is affected in the WCC if the likes of merc and Ferrari etc spend big on engine and component swaps.

Towards the end of the season you'll have the poorer teams running their engines at ridiculously low levels to stop them receiving a fine they can't afford to pay, and the rich teams paying huge fines in a high stakes game of risk and reward chasing world championships/prize money.

Sounds like a great plan...

As much as (a lot of) people hate grid penalties I'm firmly of the belief that any penalty that doesn't have an effect on track (or at least on the driver) won't work. Even the oft touted WCC deduction might seem like something that would be something teams would want to avoid sufficiently: But imagine a rich team that doesn't rely so much on prize money, that also doesn't think they can win the WCC, but has a shot at the WDC (*cough*Ferrari*cough*)

My idea was to allow teams to allocate up to 7 different race weekends for a penalty free engine/compartment swaps before the season starts, 5 mandatory and 2 "joker" swaps. Any engine/ component changes outside of this and a set monetary fee per part is paid on a sliding scale based on the teams position in the previous years WCC standings... that money is put aside and at the end of the year divided up and given to the smaller teams.

If the top teams can afford to swap parts and pay the fines let them... the money will just be given to the struggling teams anyway. Its not like sauber is affected in the WCC if the likes of merc and Ferrari etc spend big on engine and component swaps.

It also allows Honda and renault to develop a bit more freely.

Will probably get shut down but Just a suggestion.

Interesting concept you got here. I would suggest 3 race wkd with set race allocations where certain components can be introduced and 2 joker races where teams can introduce an allotment of components they choose.

As for financial penalties it should be on a scale where teams with a higher budget pay higher prices then lower budget teams and there is a cap for how much a team can spend. If you hit that cap you must make due with what you components you have. (Eg use 2 bad engines/gear box to make one) good one

...As much as (a lot of) people hate grid penalties I'm firmly of the belief that any penalty that doesn't have an effect on track (or at least on the driver) won't work....

This is my idea btw (copied from another thread):

How about this:

- You have a fixed number of top tier (/primary) Power Units with all the associated parts you can use all season.

- Power Units and parts outside of that mandate the use of an incrementally lower fuel flow limit, based on what proportion of the PU is from the primary units.

- You can use/swap/recover parts and whole PUs at will throughout the season.

You can build a wicked fast unreliable engine that costs a huge amount of money in replacements and be competitive, but reduced fuel flow would mean that you'd effectively take the edge off your performance advantage relative to more reliable engines and less expensive programmes. This would incentivise not throwing new parts (i.e. money) at the performance problem, but much more subtly than the current grid penalties.

Also if you have a generally reliable engine with one component that is the weak link then it is not such a huge and obvious issue. You can accept/work with a proportionately minor cut in fuel flow as a penalty and change as much as you like, without the huge and obvious interruption of regular grid penalties.

Towards the end of the season you'll have the poorer teams running their engines at ridiculously low levels to stop them receiving a fine they can't afford to pay, and the rich teams paying huge fines in a high stakes game of risk and reward chasing world championships/prize money.

Sounds like a great plan...

As much as (a lot of) people hate grid penalties I'm firmly of the belief that any penalty that doesn't have an effect on track (or at least on the driver) won't work. Even the oft touted WCC deduction might seem like something that would be something teams would want to avoid sufficiently: But imagine a rich team that doesn't rely so much on prize money, that also doesn't think they can win the WCC, but has a shot at the WDC (*cough*Ferrari*cough*)

I think you skimmed my post but as i said...

smaller teams pay less larger teams pay more. On a sliding scale. The money go's back into the pockets of the smaller teams. If at the end of the season the small teams pay a penalty at least they know the following season they'll get what they paid and more back as the bigger teams spend up. The fact the bigger teams pay more per part swap after their allocation and nominated races would hopefully ensure that engines and parts would at least be semi reliable. If not then the smaller teams could either rest easy knowing they'll get a larger portion of money back then what they pay in fines.

If the FIA set the cost of supply for a season and mandated that customer teams were given how ever many engine required within this cost it puts the onus on manufacturers to make them reliable or pay.If they also mandate that all teams have access to the same number of engines (of the same spec) over a season they could avoid Merc using 20 engines per car and only giving a customer 3 or 4?

Edit

And make it so any upgrades had to be available to all teams at the same time if they were to be used

There's still the potential for Merc, or any other team, to just swallow the cost of supplying their customers with more engines. You could cause even more discrepancies as 1 engine supplier decides to go all out, whilst others can't afford to.

If the FIA set the cost of supply for a season and mandated that customer teams were given how ever many engine required within this cost it puts the onus on manufacturers to make them reliable or pay.If they also mandate that all teams have access to the same number of engines (of the same spec) over a season they could avoid Merc using 20 engines per car and only giving a customer 3 or 4?

Edit

And make it so any upgrades had to be available to all teams at the same time if they were to be used

There's still the potential for Merc, or any other team, to just swallow the cost of supplying their customers with more engines. You could cause even more discrepancies as 1 engine supplier decides to go all out, whilst others can't afford to.

No different to the development race now, but would mean the teams aren't punished for their supplier giving duff kit

Much of the problem being brought up repeatedly can be solved by saying that any engine the manufacturer has must also be available to any customer at the original cost. So if a customer has a 12million engine deal for engines all year, and the manufacturer starts producing flying bombs for one race, the customer gets the same option at no extra cost to them.

They are not going to cover that sort of costs, so will not make willy nilly specials.

Much of the problem being brought up repeatedly can be solved by saying that any engine the manufacturer has must also be available to any customer at the original cost. So if a customer has a 12million engine deal for engines all year, and the manufacturer starts producing flying bombs for one race, the customer gets the same option at no extra cost to them.

They are not going to cover that sort of costs, so will not make willy nilly specials.

On the same lines, I'd say that customers should have to pay a fixed price for x engines per year. If an engine goes, it should be replaced FOC ( as long as it has been operated within defined tolerances, of course), while if a manufacturer introduces a new spec then it must deliver same spec to customers within x weeks / races, to prevent there being a two-tier system. That way, any cost escalations become a manufacturer issue, which should effectively self-police (as manufacturers won't want to keep having to replace under warranty), while forcing manufacturers to provide the same spec to everyone would ensure there wouldn't be a two-tier system.

Of course, the big problem with this is convincing the manufacturers to sign up to it! But there again they should be able to stand by their creations...

If the FIA set the cost of supply for a season and mandated that customer teams were given how ever many engine required within this cost it puts the onus on manufacturers to make them reliable or pay.If they also mandate that all teams have access to the same number of engines (of the same spec) over a season they could avoid Merc using 20 engines per car and only giving a customer 3 or 4?

Edit

And make it so any upgrades had to be available to all teams at the same time if they were to be used

There's still the potential for Merc, or any other team, to just swallow the cost of supplying their customers with more engines. You could cause even more discrepancies as 1 engine supplier decides to go all out, whilst others can't afford to.

No different to the development race now, but would mean the teams aren't punished for their supplier giving duff kit

It is different. Mercedes could build engines to last a weekend, switch them out twice a weekend, and get the improved performance which can come at the expense of reduced longevity. They will then receive no grid drops, and can plough through to their WCC & WDC.

If the FIA set the cost of supply for a season and mandated that customer teams were given how ever many engine required within this cost it puts the onus on manufacturers to make them reliable or pay.If they also mandate that all teams have access to the same number of engines (of the same spec) over a season they could avoid Merc using 20 engines per car and only giving a customer 3 or 4?

Edit

And make it so any upgrades had to be available to all teams at the same time if they were to be used

There's still the potential for Merc, or any other team, to just swallow the cost of supplying their customers with more engines. You could cause even more discrepancies as 1 engine supplier decides to go all out, whilst others can't afford to.

No different to the development race now, but would mean the teams aren't punished for their supplier giving duff kit

It is different. Mercedes could build engines to last a weekend, switch them out twice a weekend, and get the improved performance which can come at the expense of reduced longevity. They will then receive no grid drops, and can plough through to their WCC & WDC.

I meant in the sense manufactures can plough as much money and resources into r and d as they like giving an advantage. Making it so if they replace their engines they have to make extra units available to customers at no extra cost benefits their customers...

Towards the end of the season you'll have the poorer teams running their engines at ridiculously low levels to stop them receiving a fine they can't afford to pay, and the rich teams paying huge fines in a high stakes game of risk and reward chasing world championships/prize money.

Sounds like a great plan...

As much as (a lot of) people hate grid penalties I'm firmly of the belief that any penalty that doesn't have an effect on track (or at least on the driver) won't work. Even the oft touted WCC deduction might seem like something that would be something teams would want to avoid sufficiently: But imagine a rich team that doesn't rely so much on prize money, that also doesn't think they can win the WCC, but has a shot at the WDC (*cough*Ferrari*cough*)

I think you skimmed my post but as i said...

smaller teams pay less larger teams pay more. On a sliding scale. The money go's back into the pockets of the smaller teams. If at the end of the season the small teams pay a penalty at least they know the following season they'll get what they paid and more back as the bigger teams spend up. The fact the bigger teams pay more per part swap after their allocation and nominated races would hopefully ensure that engines and parts would at least be semi reliable. If not then the smaller teams could either rest easy knowing they'll get a larger portion of money back then what they pay in fines.

I wasn't really replying directly to your idea: More the general idea of financial penalties, which is why I didn't address the specific tweaks/improvements you suggested.

I do still think that while what you envision may work generally and potentially be good on a macro scale, there are still specific scenarios where a team would likely find any financial penalty worth taking for the potential benefits. I'm thinking a close title race towards the end of the season. Then you potentially get into a situation where the team willing to pay the most fines gains an advantage on track and wins a championship largely because of that. Something that is surely not a desirable result. I'm not sure there is any real way of avoiding that possibility with any system that does not include any tangible on track penalty for doing something that has tangible on track benefits.

why not allow the teams to repair or replace parts as necessary on each of the four (three) engines as required, with a financial penalty and wcc point deduction, maybe on a sliding scale in line with the previous years wcc. they would need conclusive proof from data and physical examination that it is required with the fia overseeing. that way they dont get extra engines as such but always have useable engines in the pool but run to high mileage. each new engine of the 4 (3) can be changed as much as wanted before first use.

also perhaps along with the financial and wcc penalties there could be grid penalties but say 1 to 5 places max so the grid arent being turned on its head.

now if like honda they use 3 engines in aus first practice then they may have to add additional ones which you may have to penalise on the grid. once the other 3 engines are fixed then the fourth is taken out of the pool. this would then mean honda cant upgrade their engines which would be a mistake as i think if they do a bad job they must have the opportunity to improve them. maybe teams can buy upgrades at a set cost and wcc points.

it is very tricky and to a certain extent i agree with the comments that without a grid penalty it wont work.

Surprisingly, the mid field teams see no problem with the penalties. FI (http://www.planetf1.com/news/force-indi ... penalties/) and Haas both feel there is nothing wrong. This is understandable as they do not run the engines so close to the wood as the makers do, so they last longer, but I thought mid field did not like it either